JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused F.I.R. No. 1451/2001, Police Station Shri Parsoli, District Chittorgarh lodged by complainant Nana S/o Pratap Chamar against the petitioners. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the F.I.R. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has earlier also filed an F.I.R. on 23rd July, 2000 against one Jeevan Singh S/o Mod Singh and the complainant is habitual of lodging false first information reports. He further contended that the first information report lodged by the complainant is false and the present F.I.R. is also in the same sequence. 4. I have gone through the F.I.R. It constitute the cognizable offence showing occurrence dated 29th June, 2001. Another F.I.R. which was lodged by the complainant is dated 23rd July, 2000 showing occurrence of 18th July, 2000. In both the FI.Rs. the occurrences are different and the accused persons except Jeeven Singh are different. It is settled law that FI.R. can be quashed if on bare perusal of F.I.R. on the face of it, no cognizable offence is disclosed or the F.I.R. is so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 5. In Nageshwar Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. Narayan Singh & anr. 1998 Cr.L.R. (SC) 670 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when agreement for sale was executed, it could have in no event been termed dishonest so as to hold that the complainants were cheated of the earnest money, which they passed to the appellant as part consideration, when possession of the total land involved in the bargain was passed over to the complainant-respondents, and which remains in their possession. 6. In Mahavir Prashad Gupta (Shri) and anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 765 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that undoubtedly there could be interference in rarest of rare cases. However, one such would be when the complaint itself does not disclose any offence. 7. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & ors., reported in 1988 (4) SCC 655 , it has been held that the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. has to be exercised sparingly and with the circumspection. However, one such would be when the complaint itself does not disclose any offence. 7. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & ors., reported in 1988 (4) SCC 655 , it has been held that the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC. has to be exercised sparingly and with the circumspection. It has been held that at initial stage, the court could not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. 8. In State of Haryana v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, A.I.R. 1992 SC 604 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to law or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in the F.I.R. of the complainant. 9. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat & anr., JT 2001 (6) SC 631 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under "Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of event thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FI.R. cannot possibly be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole so as to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude neither it is a document which requires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. It is in this context however one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. It is in this context however one feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that there cannot possibly be any guiding factor as to which investigation ought to be scuttled at the initial stages and investigations which ought not to be so scuttled. The First Information Report needs to be considered and if the answer is found on a perusal thereof which leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other's sphere." 10. Keeping in view the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have examined the first information report and the investigation carried out by the police. In my considered opinion, the allegations in the F.I.R. and the investigation make out a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences noticed above and the case in hand is not the one rarest of rare case which needs interference by this Court. 11. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. This petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******